2 out of several homosexual myths tossed around the fourm

[Jake21]

Myth #1 - Homosexuality is not only a disorder in the eyes of catholic theology, but also in the eyes of modern psychology.

Claiming that the American Psychological Association was just pressured by homosexuals in the 1970s to remove homosexuality from the DSM and that they are still pressured to this day is nowhere near strong enough to conclude that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. This is because there are multiple adult homosexuals on this planet that have never exhibited any behavior that would justify a psychologist to question his or her psychological state. I think we all intuitively know It’s not by any means ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to find multiple homosexuals well into their adulthood that have never been arrested, never been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and have no family members or friends whatsoever say they have seen him or her act in a dysfunctional manner. Now you could claim after giving a background check that the homosexual is just lying about their friends and family members, but are we really going to claim that EVERY SINGLE homosexual is dishonest? I do admit that homosexuals do have higher rates of disorders, but remember that does not mean that homosexuality IS ITSELF a disorder. Many argue that those disorders are triggered by the high rates of jaw dropping social rejection, violence, and bullying experienced by homosexuals.

Myth #2 - The catholic sex abuse scandal was predominantly perpetrated by homosexual priests.

I have even heard one of the CAF apologists moronically call this a “homosexual scandal”. Where is the evidence that the priests who raped 15 through 17 year olds actually identified themselves as exclusively homosexual? Would if a significant amount of these priests actually identified as bisexuals? How do we know that most of these priests are actually heterosexual? Would if they find it extremely difficult to rape females because most parents our more comfortable sending male teenagers alone on trips then they are with teenage females? It’s possible that they mostly raped males that were visually on the feminine side so the priest could simulate having sex with a female as much as possible. This is similar to what many prisoners who have not felt the touch of a women in decades do. You cannot rationally make this claim without ruling these possibilities out. Doing this would require some deeper research on the matter. There also appears to be a modern psychological consensus that homosexuals are not more likely to rape adult males or adult looking minor males then heterosexuals are to rape adult or adult looking females.

lanternproject.org.uk/library/general/articles-and-information-about-sexual-abuse-and-its-impact/facts-about-homosexuality-and-child-molestation/

 

[JimG]

“The authors insist that homosexuality played no role in the abuse crisis, but their own data undermine this conclusion. For example, they plainly admit that “81 percent of the victims [between 1950 and 2002] were male,” and that 78 percent were postpubescent. So if the abusers weren’t pedophiles, and the victims were mostly adolescent males, wouldn’t that make the victimizers homosexuals? What else could we possibly be talking about if not homosexuality?

“What is not well understood,” we learn, “is that it is possible for a person to participate in a same-sex act without assuming or recognizing an identity as a homosexual.” Yes, it is entirely possible for a homosexual not to recognize that he is a homosexual. So what? Isn’t it behavior, not self-perception, that objectively defines one’s sexual orientation?”

Source:
ncregister.com/daily-news/john-jay-study-undermined-by-its-own-data/

catholicleague.org/politics-color-john-jay-study/

 

[Jake21]

“The authors insist that homosexuality played no role in the abuse crisis, but their own data undermine this conclusion. For example, they plainly admit that “81 percent of the victims [between 1950 and 2002] were male,” and that 78 percent were postpubescent. So if the abusers weren’t pedophiles, and the victims were mostly adolescent males, wouldn’t that make the victimizers homosexuals? What else could we possibly be talking about if not homosexuality?

“What is not well understood,” we learn, “is that it is possible for a person to participate in a same-sex act without assuming or recognizing an identity as a homosexual.” Yes, it is entirely possible for a homosexual not to recognize that he is a homosexual. So what? Isn’t it behavior, not self-perception, that objectively defines one’s sexual orientation?”

Source:
ncregister.com/daily-news/john-jay-study-undermined-by-its-own-data/

catholicleague.org/politics-color-john-jay-study/

"So what? Isn’t it behavior, not self-perception, that objectively defines one’s sexual orientation?”

Would about the possability that the priests personally identified as hedrosexauls, but they just used feminine looking males as a substitute because they couldn’t get their hands on females? The priests are doing the same thing as male hedrosexual prisoners who don’t have any access to women do. Do you personally feel this argument for that possibility has a decent amount of weight to it?

 

[Theo520]

I think Myth #2 is complicated because pedophilia was lumped in with homosexual

• many of the abuse cases were about pedophilia, which is very different than SSA
• bulk of other cases might be attributed to Pederasts, which is illegal/immoral but not really a disorder in same way as pedophilia.

All the cases involved abusing their trusted role as Shepard of the flock though.

Myth #2 - The catholic sex abuse scandal was predominantly perpetrated by homosexual priests.

 

[Jake21]

I think Myth #2 is complicated because pedophilia was lumped in with homosexual

• many of the abuse cases were about pedophilia, which is very different than SSA
• bulk of other cases might be attributed to Pederasts, which is illegal/immoral but not really a disorder in same way as pedophilia.

All the cases involved abusing their trusted role as Shepard of the flock though.

Pepole are arguing that you might as well just call them homosexuals because a lot of the teenage victims have some visual maturity to them that make them look no different from adults. There claiming that these priests are comparable to the female high school teachers who have sex with junior and senior students. My respounce to that is pointing out the fact that there is a possibility that most of the priest personally identified as hedrosexuals and that if they had an equal amount of opportunity to assault both males and females they would only assault the females. The opposing side to myth #2 claim there is a possibility that Priests have far less opportunites to assault females then males. We claim this possibility of easier access to males exists because we intuitively believe that parents of teenagers are much more trustworthy with sending their sons on trips with Priests then they are with their daughters for obvious reasons. They continue on by claiming that because of this, priests just resort to raping feminine looking males as substitutes for females. The opposing side to what’s being called a “homosexual scandal” compares this possabilty to the situation with male prisoners who have not felt the touch of a women in decades and therefore resort to raping famine looking male prisoners.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I am basing the following views on men I knew a while back.

Jake21, I agree with leaving most if not all schools of psychology out of the frame.

Continued ambiguity in usage of the words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” ensure that this question will not be settled satisfactorily.

The last of the paragraphs quoted by JimG confuses identity and orientation additionally.

As to the factors in your para 2, these priests will have been in one or more categories out of those mentioned by you and by Theo520, who has also hit the nail on the head in his conclusion. How many and how few are within overlapping sets of categories is up to them and not us.

 

[chris62]

Myth #1 - Homosexuality is not only a disorder in the eyes of catholic theology, but also in the eyes of modern psychology.

Claiming that the American Psychological Association was just pressured by homosexuals in the 1970s to remove homosexuality from the DSM and that they are still pressured to this day is nowhere near strong enough to conclude that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. This is because there are multiple adult homosexuals on this planet that have never exhibited any behavior that would justify a psychologist to question his or her psychological state. I think we all intuitively know It’s not by any means ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to find multiple homosexuals well into their adulthood that have never been arrested, never been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and have no family members or friends whatsoever say they have seen him or her act in a dysfunctional manner. Now you could claim after giving a background check that the homosexual is just lying about their friends and family members, but are we really going to claim that EVERY SINGLE homosexual is dishonest? I do admit that homosexuals do have higher rates of disorders, but remember that does not mean that homosexuality IS ITSELF a disorder. Many argue that those disorders are triggered by the high rates of jaw dropping social rejection, violence, and bullying experienced by homosexuals.

Myth #2 - The catholic sex abuse scandal was predominantly perpetrated by homosexual priests.

I have even heard one of the CAF apologists moronically call this a “homosexual scandal”. Where is the evidence that the priests who raped 15 through 17 year olds actually identified themselves as exclusively homosexual? Would if a significant amount of these priests actually identified as bisexuals? How do we know that most of these priests are actually heterosexual? Would if they find it extremely difficult to rape females because most parents our more comfortable sending male teenagers alone on trips then they are with teenage females? It’s possible that they mostly raped males that were visually on the feminine side so the priest could simulate having sex with a female as much as possible. This is similar to what many prisoners who have not felt the touch of a women in decades do. You cannot rationally make this claim without ruling these possibilities out. Doing this would require some deeper research on the matter. There also appears to be a modern psychological consensus that homosexuals are not more likely to rape adult males or adult looking minor males then heterosexuals are to rape adult or adult looking females.

lanternproject.org.uk/library/general/articles-and-information-about-sexual-abuse-and-its-impact/facts-about-homosexuality-and-child-molestation/

Homosexuality is a disorder.
The term disorder does not, as you naively believe, mean they therefore act anti -socially, but it means that the homosexual act is not part of the Natural Order.
That is, homosexuals cannot perpetuate.
If you can prove homosexuals can perpetuate, then, you may have a point.

 

[1990Domer]

"So what? Isn’t it behavior, not self-perception, that objectively defines one’s sexual orientation?”

Would about the possability that the priests personally identified as hedrosexauls, but they just used feminine looking males as a substitute because they couldn’t get their hands on females? The priests are doing the same thing as male hedrosexual prisoners who don’t have any access to women do. Do you personally feel this argument for that possibility has a decent amount of weight to it?

Why do you think they would not have access to females? If you look at the cross section of workers/volunteers at churches and school, the ratio is about 9:1. And I am not counting teachers, REC directors and aides.

 

[Jake21]

Homosexuality is a disorder.
The term disorder does not, as you naively believe, mean they therefore act anti -socially, but it means that the homosexual act is not part of the Natural Order.
That is, homosexuals cannot perpetuate.
If you can prove homosexuals can perpetuate, then, you may have a point.

I was aware of your view that homosexuality is a disorder in the eyes of your religion due to the fact that homosexuals cannot procreate. I apologize if the ambiguity of myth #1 confused you. I honestly did not intend to dive in the CAFs view of homosexuality being a theological disorder, I was instead only determined to debunk the claim that it was a disorder in the eyes of modern psychology.

 

[chris62]

I was aware of your view that homosexuality is a disorder in the eyes of your religion due to the fact that homosexuals cannot procreate. I apologize if the ambiguity of myth #1 confused you. I honestly did not intend to dive in the CAFs view of homosexuality being a theological disorder, I was instead only determined to debunk the claim that it was a disorder in the eyes of modern psychology.

If that’s all you wanted to do then you shouldn’t have much of a problem.
That argument has been done to death on CAF.
How " modern" psychology came to that belief is a much more interesting topic indeed.

 

[Jake21]

Why do you think they would not have access to females? If you look at the cross section of workers/volunteers at churches and school, the ratio is about 9:1. And I am not counting teachers, REC directors and aides.

First off, I believe that many priests with a decent amount common sense would not chose to attack their victims on church or school property. Unless they felt like instantly being arrested. If the priests assaults their victim in the restroom, confession room, etc, the victim would simply instantly call the police and the cops would most likely be there in less than 10 minutes. If he does end up making a sudden run after the police our called then they will obviously conclude he committed the crime and charge him. If he remains there then he will most likely be arrested and the teenager will immediately receive a rape kit. There is a good chance that these priests were smart enough to assault their victims on one on one trips that lasted multiple days. These one on one trips were ideal for them because they couldn’t be caught right on the spot and genetic evidence had time to wear off. A one on one camping trip that lasts more than one day is an excellent example. Being deep enough in the woods will leave you with no good cellphone service, plenty of time for genetic evidence to go away, distance from police, and zero security cameras. This means that they have a higher chance of getting away with the crime because there is simply no solid evidence against him. Second off, I think we both know that most parents will feel much more comfortable sending their sons rather than their daughters on one on one camping trips with priests for obvious reasons.

 

[Jake21]

That’s absurd.
The victims are mostly male because it’s boys who are around the priests.
And…post-pubescent age for girls is considered 12, and for boys–14. If a man forced a 12-year-old girl to have sex, would you just say he’s just heterosexual, but not one who preys on underage girls?

The John Jay study you are quoting says that 32% of the victims were pre-pubescent or pubescent.

.

Good points.

 

[Durnford]

Myth #1 - Homosexuality is not only a disorder in the eyes of catholic theology, but also in the eyes of modern psychology.

Claiming that the American Psychological Association was just pressured by homosexuals in the 1970s to remove homosexuality from the DSM and that they are still pressured to this day is nowhere near strong enough to conclude that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. This is because there are multiple adult homosexuals on this planet that have never exhibited any behavior that would justify a psychologist to question his or her psychological state. I think we all intuitively know It’s not by any means ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to find multiple homosexuals well into their adulthood that have never been arrested, never been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and have no family members or friends whatsoever say they have seen him or her act in a dysfunctional manner. Now you could claim after giving a background check that the homosexual is just lying about their friends and family members, but are we really going to claim that EVERY SINGLE homosexual is dishonest? I do admit that homosexuals do have higher rates of disorders, but remember that does not mean that homosexuality IS ITSELF a disorder. Many argue that those disorders are triggered by the high rates of jaw dropping social rejection, violence, and bullying experienced by homosexuals.

Myth #2 - The catholic sex abuse scandal was predominantly perpetrated by homosexual priests.

I have even heard one of the CAF apologists moronically call this a “homosexual scandal”. Where is the evidence that the priests who raped 15 through 17 year olds actually identified themselves as exclusively homosexual? Would if a significant amount of these priests actually identified as bisexuals? How do we know that most of these priests are actually heterosexual? Would if they find it extremely difficult to rape females because most parents our more comfortable sending male teenagers alone on trips then they are with teenage females? It’s possible that they mostly raped males that were visually on the feminine side so the priest could simulate having sex with a female as much as possible. This is similar to what many prisoners who have not felt the touch of a women in decades do. You cannot rationally make this claim without ruling these possibilities out. Doing this would require some deeper research on the matter. There also appears to be a modern psychological consensus that homosexuals are not more likely to rape adult males or adult looking minor males then heterosexuals are to rape adult or adult looking females.

lanternproject.org.uk/library/general/articles-and-information-about-sexual-abuse-and-its-impact/facts-about-homosexuality-and-child-molestation/

How can it be normal to want to have sex with another man
It is normal for a man to feel sexual attraction to another woman yes but to a man no
So that already means if you are having same sex attraction then you have a problem,
It is obviously not psychologically normal to experience these desires

 

[josh987654321]

Myth #1 - Homosexuality is not only a disorder in the eyes of catholic theology, but also in the eyes of modern psychology.

I don’t believe this is a myth.

Claiming that the American Psychological Association was just pressured by homosexuals in the 1970s to remove homosexuality from the DSM and that they are still pressured to this day is nowhere near strong enough to conclude that homosexuality is a psychological disorder.

True, however, I am certain that they have been under pressure to change it.

Nonetheless, I believe all of that is really irrelevant to whether it is actually a psychological disorder or not, I would like the facts as to why it was recognized as such in the first place and what the reasoning was for removing it.

I believe if one studies the human anatomy and the reproductive system, it’s clear and plain to see that the sexual acts of homosexuality means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for.

This is because there are multiple adult homosexuals on this planet that have never exhibited any behavior that would justify a psychologist to question his or her psychological state.

The sexual acts of homosexuality don’t count?

I think we all intuitively know It’s not by any means ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to find multiple homosexuals well into their adulthood that have never been arrested, never been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and have no family members or friends whatsoever say they have seen him or her act in a dysfunctional manner. Now you could claim after giving a background check that the homosexual is just lying about their friends and family members, but are we really going to claim that EVERY SINGLE homosexual is dishonest? I do admit that homosexuals do have higher rates of disorders, but remember that does not mean that homosexuality IS ITSELF a disorder. Many argue that those disorders are triggered by the high rates of jaw dropping social rejection, violence, and bullying experienced by homosexuals.

Of course it’s absolutely impossible to find multiple homosexuals who have had ‘other’ disorders. Were not discussing the other disorders one may have, simply the sexual acts of homosexuality or the desire to do so.

As for Myth 2, I don’t know and I see it as irrelevant anyway, I see no need of establishing a link, nor do I believe there is a way to establish such a link anyway, I consider it pedophilia, whether some had homosexual tendencies I don’t know, could be possible, even if true, on the flip side I don’t believe it means homosexuals therefore have pedophilia tendencies.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Gorgias]

JimG:

JimG View Post
“The authors insist that homosexuality played no role in the abuse crisis, but their own data undermine this conclusion. For example, they plainly admit that “81 percent of the victims [between 1950 and 2002] were male,” and that 78 percent were postpubescent.

The John Jay study you are quoting says that 32% of the victims were pre-pubescent or pubescent.

22%. 100-78 = 22.

But, what is that supposed to prove, anyway? If I said that 3/4 of a population had a cold, would you conclude that this population was healthy? Or would you logically conclude that, by and large, they were sick?

In this case, the fact that 4/5 of the victims were male and 3/4 were physically mature points to the conclusion that, for a majority of the cases, this wasn’t about pedophilia or male/female sexual relations at all!

 

[Gorgias]

First off, I believe that many priests with a decent amount common sense would not chose to attack their victims on church or school property. Unless they felt like instantly being arrested. If the priests assaults their victim in the restroom, confession room, etc, the victim would simply instantly call the police and the cops would most likely be there in less than 10 minutes.

These assumptions you’re making are filled with inaccuracies.

“On church or school property” is precisely where priests had access to their victims. Moreover, these weren’t “hit and run” assaults; these men groomed their victims, carefully selecting them and then (often) making more than one assault of the same victim. Clearly, they played on the shame and on the trust people had of clergy – their victims didn’t run to police or to trusted adults.

Your assumptions just don’t hold up to the facts of the situation.

There is a good chance that these priests were smart enough to assault their victims on one on one trips that lasted multiple days.

This is not the case; these assaults didn’t happen on “trips”, they happened in the course of priests’ normal interactions with their victims.

A one on one camping trip that lasts more than one day is an excellent example. Being deep enough in the woods will leave you with no good cellphone service, plenty of time for genetic evidence to go away, distance from police, and zero security cameras.

A priest? On a multiple-day camping trip, in the woods, with their victims? No; that’s not what happened here. Look up the cases themselves; you’ll see that you’re building up an example that isn’t close to what really happened… :nope:

I think we both know that most parents will feel much more comfortable sending their sons rather than their daughters on one on one camping trips with priests for obvious reasons.

Again, even with your inaccurate ‘camping trip’ example, the issue here is that priests had plenty of access to both girls and boys, not just boys alone.

 

[Jake21]

I will admit that a lot of what I said was based of my intutuion of what’s possible. Maybe I did sound a little over confident there. Do you know of any specific statistical evidence to support your claims that go against my proposed possabilities?

 

[Jake21]

These assumptions you’re making are filled with inaccuracies.

“On church or school property” is precisely where priests had access to their victims. Moreover, these weren’t “hit and run” assaults; these men groomed their victims, carefully selecting them and then (often) making more than one assault of the same victim. Clearly, they played on the shame and on the trust people had of clergy – their victims didn’t run to police or to trusted adults.

Your assumptions just don’t hold up to the facts of the situation.

This is not the case; these assaults didn’t happen on “trips”, they happened in the course of priests’ normal interactions with their victims.

A priest? On a multiple-day camping trip, in the woods, with their victims? No; that’s not what happened here. Look up the cases themselves; you’ll see that you’re building up an example that isn’t close to what really happened… :nope:

Again, even with your inaccurate ‘camping trip’ example, the issue here is that priests had plenty of access to both girls and boys, not just boys alone.

I will admit that what I said was based of my intutuion of what’s possible. Maybe I did sound a little over confident there. Do you know of any specific statistical evidence to support your claims that go against my proposed possibilities? I rather see some solid statistic evidence rather then just look at a bunch of stories online.

 

[Jake21]

How can it be normal to want to have sex with another man
It is normal for a man to feel sexual attraction to another woman yes but to a man no
So that already means if you are having same sex attraction then you have a problem,
It is obviously not psychologically normal to experience these desires

To be considered a disorder in the eyes of psycholgy, somthing must cause mild to severe disturbances in thought and/or behavior, resulting in an inability to cope with life’s ordinary demands and routines. Would you mind telling me how exactly homosexuality fits this definition? How are they unable to function with life on a daily basis?

 

[Jake21]

I don’t believe this is a myth.

True, however, I am certain that they have been under pressure to change it.

Nonetheless, I believe all of that is really irrelevant to whether it is actually a psychological disorder or not, I would like the facts as to why it was recognized as such in the first place and what the reasoning was for removing it.

I believe if one studies the human anatomy and the reproductive system, it’s clear and plain to see that the sexual acts of homosexuality means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for.

The sexual acts of homosexuality don’t count?

Of course it’s absolutely impossible to find multiple homosexuals who have had ‘other’ disorders. Were not discussing the other disorders one may have, simply the sexual acts of homosexuality or the desire to do so.

As for Myth 2, I don’t know and I see it as irrelevant anyway, I see no need of establishing a link, nor do I believe there is a way to establish such a link anyway, I consider it pedophilia, whether some had homosexual tendencies I don’t know, could be possible, even if true, on the flip side I don’t believe it means homosexuals therefore have pedophilia tendencies.

I hope this has helped

God Bless You

Thank you for reading
Josh

I understand that you see homosexuality as a theological disorder, but why do you believe that homosexuality being a psychological disorder is not a myth? To be considered a disorder in the eyes of psycholgy, somthing must cause mild to severe disturbances in thought and/or behavior, resulting in an inability to cope with life’s ordinary demands and routines. Would you mind telling me how exactly homosexuality fits this definition? Do you have any evidence to show that all homosexuals on this planet are unable to function with life on a daily basis?